alleged by related parties, secured creditors and unsecured creditors. All cash payments made by the Company under the Plan on the Effective Date were funded from cash on hand. Confirmation of the plan resulted in the discharge of all claims against the Company that arose before December 1, 2020 and substantially alters or terminates all rights and interests of equity security holders as provided for in the plan.
Pre-petition claims and liabilities subject to compromise
On January 29, 2021, the Debtors filed schedules of assets and liabilities and statements of financial affairs with the Bankruptcy Court setting forth, among other things, the assets and liabilities of the Debtors, subject to the assumptions filed in connection therewith. The schedules and statements were subject to further amendment or modification after filing.
During bankruptcy, the Debtors’ liabilities were segregated into those subject to compromise and those not subject to compromise under ASC 852. Liabilities subject to compromise represented pre-petition obligations that were not fully secured and had at least a possibility of not being repaid at the full claim amount.
The Chapter 11 petition triggered an event of default under the Term Loan B Credit Agreement. As of the Petition Date, the Company reclassified the Term Loan B to liabilities subject to compromise and discontinued recording interest. During the year ended December 31, 2020 (Predecessor), we paid interest of LIBOR + 6% on the original term loan and LIBOR + 10% on the super senior loans. LIBOR was subject to a 1% floor. As of the date of filing for Chapter 11, we were subject to an additional 2% default interest. The contractual interest expense on the Term Loan B not accrued in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations was $21.3 million for the period from the Petition Date through December 31, 2020 (Predecessor) and $77.9 million for the period from January 1, 2021 through the Effective Date (Predecessor).
All holders of pre-petition claims except governmental units were required to file proofs of claim by February 15, 2021 (the “Bar Date”). Governmental units holding claims against the Debtors were required to file proof of claim by May 30, 2021. At the Bar Date, 285 claims totaling approximately $3.2 billion had been filed with the Bankruptcy Court against the Debtors. Subsequent to this date, approximately 166 further claims have been filed but this did not materially impact the overall amount claimed against the Debtors. Through the claims resolution process, we identified claims that we believe should be disallowed by the Bankruptcy Court because they were duplicative, were later amended or superseded, were without merit, or were overstated or for other reasons. Through the claims resolution process, differences in amounts scheduled by the Debtors and claims filed by creditors were investigated and resolved, including through the filing of objections with the Bankruptcy Court where appropriate. We filed objections with the Bankruptcy Court as necessary for claims we believed should have been disallowed. Claims we believed were allowable were reflected in “Liabilities subject to compromise” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets.
Prior to the Company’s emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy on the Effective Date, all pre-petition amounts of known or potential pre-petition claims to be resolved in connection with the Chapter 11 Proceedings were classified as “Liabilities subject to compromise” in the Consolidated Balance Sheets at the expected amount of the allowed claim. All liabilities subject to compromise excluding general unsecured claims (“GUC”) have either been settled or reinstated pursuant to the terms of the Plan. The GUC has not been settled and will not be settled prior to completion of our audited financials.
In light of the number of claims filed, the claims resolution process will take additional time to complete. Accordingly, the ultimate number and amount of allowed claims is not presently known, nor can the ultimate recovery with respect to allowed claims be presently ascertained.
Debtor-In-Possession
During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases, we operated our business as debtors-in-possession in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court granted all first day motions filed by us which were designed primarily to minimize the impact of the Chapter 11 Cases on our normal day-to-day operations, our customers, regulatory agencies, including taxing authorities, and employees. As a result, we were able to conduct normal business activities and pay all associated obligations for the post-petition period and we were also authorized to pay and have paid pre-petition employees’ wages and benefits, pre-petition amounts owed to certain lienholders and critical vendors, amounts due to taxing authorities and other related taxes and funds belonging to third parties. During the pendency of the Chapter 11 Cases, all transactions outside the ordinary course of our business required the approval of the Bankruptcy Court.
New Management Services Agreements
Prior to the Chapter 11 filing, Seadrill Limited was a related party of the Company and owned 46.6% of the outstanding limited liability interests of the Company, which included 34.9% of the outstanding common units and 100% of the subordinated units. Seadrill Limited was responsible for the management, marketing, and operation of our fleet of drilling units through a series of management, operational support, and technical supervision service agreements. We were charged a fee for the services provided to us. Note that after the Effective Date Seadrill Limited was no longer a related party.
On January 20, 2021, the Company entered into a management agreement with Energy Drilling Management Pte. Ltd. (“Energy Drilling”) to maintain, market and operate our owned tender rigs; T-15, T-16, and Vencedor. The Energy Drilling MSA was the result of an extensive marketing process conducted by the Debtors. As part of this process, the Debtors reached out to numerous potential counterparties, received, and evaluated several bids in consultation with Sheppard Mullin, and in the Debtors’ business judgment, decided to enter into the Energy Drilling MSA. On February 2, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered the Energy Drilling Order, approving the Debtors’ entry into the Energy Drilling MSA agreement. The agreement started a 90-day transition period of services provided for the T-15, T-16 and Vencedor from Seadrill Limited to Energy Drilling.
On February 9, 2021, the Debtors entered into the Vantage Drilling MSA with Vantage Holdings International (“Vantage Drilling”) for the management and operation of the Debtors’ fleet vessels. The Vantage Drilling MSA was the result of an extensive marketing process conducted by the Debtors, Evercore, and Sheppard Mullin, as conflicts counsel. The Debtors, through Evercore, reached out to numerous potential counterparties, received, and evaluated several bids in consultation with Sheppard Mullin, and in the Debtors’ business judgment decided to enter into the Vantage Drilling MSA. On February 9, 2021, the Debtors submitted a motion for approval of a new framework agreement with Vantage Drilling for the management of certain rigs in our fleet.
Following the execution of the Vantage Drilling MSA, the Debtors continued to receive proposals with respect to the operation of certain of the Debtors’ vessels. Because the Vantage Drilling MSA remained subject to Bankruptcy Court approval (and was therefore not binding upon the Debtors), the Debtors undertook to assess such alternative proposals. Upon assessing such alternative proposals, the Debtors determined in their reasonable business judgment that the commercial proposition served by using a combination of Vantage Drilling, Diamond Offshore Drilling Inc. (“Diamond Offshore”), and Odfjell Drilling Ltd. (“Odjfell Drilling”), each as managers of certain of the Debtors’ vessels, was superior to the original Vantage Drilling management structure. Therefore, on March 16, 2021, the Debtors filed their Supplement to Debtors’ Emergency Motion for an Order (A) Authorizing the Debtors to Enter into a New Framework Agreement with Vantage Drilling International for the Debtors’ Fleet Vessels, and (B) Granting Related Relief (the “Supplement to MSA Motion”) seeking approval of management services agreements with Vantage Drilling, Diamond Offshore, and Odjfell Drilling. The Supplement to MSA Motion was heard on March 18, 2021. The Bankruptcy Court approved the motion, authorizing the Debtors to enter into management services agreements with Diamond Offshore, Odfjell Drilling, and an amended management services agreement with Vantage Drilling (collectively the Energy Drilling, Vantage Drilling, Diamond Offshore and Odfjell Drilling agreements are the “MSA Agreements” and Energy Drilling, Vantage Drilling, Diamond Offshore and Odfjell Drilling are the “MSA Managers”).
Seadrill Limited Global Settlement
On April 16, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court entered the MSA Settlement Order, which among other things, approved the Settlement (as defined in the MSA Settlement Order) by and among SDLP and each of its direct and indirect debtor and non-debtor subsidiaries and affiliates and Seadrill Limited and Seadrill Management Ltd. collectively with each of its debtor and non-debtor subsidiaries that provided services to SDLP under the Amended and Restated Management and Administrative Services Agreement, dated as of September 11, 2017, and all related agreements, and certain ancillary agreements (collectively, the “Seadrill Limited MSA”) (collectively, the “Parties”). The MSA Settlement Order provided for a global settlement between SDLP and Seadrill Limited, under which there was a comprehensive resolution of all disputes and claims and causes of action regarding pre-petition claims between SDLP and Seadrill Limited, post-petition charges under the management and administrative services agreements between the Parties, and provisions for go-forward transition services, each pursuant to a final order of the Bankruptcy Court. The Settlement Order among other things, deemed all payments due under the Settlement to be administrative claims against SDLP as defined in the Bankruptcy Code, authorized the Parties to perform any and all obligations contemplated by the Settlement, and modified the MSAs between the Parties during the transition period to reflect the terms of the Settlement and terminated the MSAs between the Parties at the conclusion of the transition period.
15